LegalEagleMan wrote:Both "money" and the "dollar" are both defined, see Constitution. Congress can't redefine anything in the Constitution. That has been well settled.

Congress has the authority to set the value of with weights and measures, that is it... they can't make a pumpkin a dollar anymore than I can make a pumpkin turn into a carriage for Cinderella to ride around in. I guess Congress can in the mean time by statute create real live skittle farting unicorns that can fly.

While someone may want a law defining what a dollar is, it is pointless and nonsensical, apart from its construction. Why?

The dollar has been defined for well over 200 years. What is pointless is thinking someone has the authority to redefine.

At the end of the day, they (Congress) can set the value of "money" with weights and measures as standards. They have no authority to make something money that was not "money" at the time of the Constitution.

Oh Really, and just exactly where would that be??? You must have the super double secret edition, mine is just the one everyone else has used and accepted and acknowledged for the last 220 or so years.

Oh, so they are set by their “intent” are they, and just what words would those be that have the super secret meaning?

And yet oddly enough, there is not one word in the Constitution that specifies what “money” is, or oddly enough even what our currency is or should be, it does however say that Congress can use it’s legislative authority to carry that out, and guess what, they have been doing that all these many years in spite if your enlightened knowledge. Care to guess who I think actually has it right? And the answer definitely isn't you!!!!!

And actually, a dollar is defined as being worth 100 cents, 10 dimes, 4 quarters, 2 half dollars, or 20 nickels, all of which are coin of the realm and by deemed to be worth the face value stated on them. Actually to the best of my knowledge, the penny and nickel are actually worth more, so alas, your fantasy fails yet again.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one who thought that. My theory is one of them is a local hero at some patridiot site or something like and he invited the mob over to try to engage the grownups. Just a theory.

notorial dissent wrote:Oh Really, and just exactly where would that be??? You must have the super double secret edition, mine is just the one everyone else has used and accepted and acknowledged for the last 220 or so years.

Oh, so they are set by their “intent” are they, and just what words would those be that have the super secret meaning?

Don't know what you mean by super secret.

And yet oddly enough, there is not one word in the Constitution that specifies what “money” is, or oddly enough even what our currency is or should be, it does however say that Congress can use it’s legislative authority to carry that out, and guess what, they have been doing that all these many years in spite if your enlightened knowledge. Care to guess who I think actually has it right? And the answer definitely isn't you!!!!!

Congress has every right to borrow money on credit, I don't know who has said otherwise. You seem to have me confused with someone else.

You are free to contact your Congressman who in turn will most probably contact Congressional Reserve Service on anything else I have said. There isn't really much for me to be right about, this horse has been beaten to death. Again, you are free to believe what you want to believe, you can contact your Congressman. Heck, I tell you what go get a final agency order from the Commission telling you what "money" is and let us know how that turns out.

And actually, a dollar is defined as being worth 100 cents, 10 dimes, 4 quarters, 2 half dollars, or 20 nickels, all of which are coin of the realm and by deemed to be worth the face value stated on them. Actually to the best of my knowledge, the penny and nickel are actually worth more, so alas, your fantasy fails yet again.

No disagreement there, I fail to see you point. You say I fail yet you appear to say what is written in the statute, ok I believe you.

Now if my old memory is correct, weren't you the one that said you report a gold eagle on your return at face value if done for goods and services?

LegalEagleMan wrote:Both "money" and the "dollar" are both defined, see Constitution.

I haven't followed this thread either, but I can't pass this one up. Where does the Constitution define either "money" or "dollar"? "Where" does not mean "give me your opinion". It does not mean "spin some prolix theory" or "why don't you bloviate for a while". "Where" means "Art. X sec.Y" or "Amendment Z".

*Your doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I am not well versed into the legal definition of a "dollar" or on the evidence you are presenting in this forum. But what I do know is that your making the same arguments in this thread as you did in the previous thread about the legal definition of a "dollar" and you are once again failing to convince the misfits.

You didn't convince them in the last thread, what assures you you will in this thread? Nothing.

Dude, you're knowledge base may be as solid as steel, but you're wasting your time and energy pissing up a rope trying to convince this Motley Crew.

Both "money" and the "dollar" are both defined, see Constitution. Congress can't redefine anything in the Constitution. That has been well settled.

I found a copy of the Constitution--thanks to W. Serra Esq. After reading it, I found money is mentioned but three times and no definition. Dollar is a word that does not exist in that document. Maybe you meant some other Constitution?

CaptainKickback wrote:Someone here has gone on ad nauseum, about where is the law that defines what a dollar is. Now, eventually the lawyers will chime in, but let's start off with a lay look at the dollar, specifically, the US dollar.

JUST A NOTE:

When one uses the word “dollar” in place of “federal reserve note”, the distinctions between the two are lost and assists Wall Street bankers who, without constitutional authority, are manipulating our nation's currency using worthless paper notes.

*23. This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

Fact: The U.S. dollar has not lost its value. Federal reserve notes have lost their perceived value which never had any intrinsic value from the beginning! In addition, Congress, and only Congress, was given power to regulate the value of our money, and not an un-elected group of private sector Wall Street Bankers called the federal reserve board.

Finally, keep in mind a fundamental rule of constitutional law: “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)

Regards,

JWK

"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat
of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

jkeeb wrote:
I found a copy of the Constitution--thanks to W. Serra Esq. After reading it, I found money is mentioned but three times and no definition. Dollar is a word that does not exist in that document. Maybe you meant some other Constitution?

I don't think you're qualified to be a legal Beagle.

Sure it is. As soon as the words are used in the Constitution their meaning is now set. Congress has not authority to alter and neither does anyone else in the Executive Branch or Judicial Branch. Been like this for a few centuries now. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=189

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

Talk about crazy theories, people actually believe Congress or some other branch of the federal government can alter the Constitution. Ok, sure and skittle farting unicorns are flying around my house right now. Wacky.

"money" was defined by the Constitution and so was the "dollar" well over 200 years ago.

Of course it's much easier to call a person names instead of going to the library to look it up. When all else falls go back to the old stand-by. Next let me see, my mom dresses me funny. My mom is so fat....

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Okay, JWK: since you are such an expert on the dollar, can you please describe for us the weight and fineness of dollar coins in 1794 and 1840. Throw in the Trade Dollars of 1873-1885, since they eventually became legal tender for a dollar, I believe. Also, since two half dollars equal one dollar, please review for us the weight and fineness of half dollar coins of 1794, 1839, 1853, 1873 and 1965; and please don't forget to cite the relevant Coinage Acts -- one of which you have supplied to us. These Acts are nothing more than legislation, passed under the authority of Article I, Section 8; and they can be, and have been, modified or repealed by subsequent Acts.

Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

First, do you even realize that from the earliest days, before federal reserve notes, there was in circulation what are the more or less same thing, with one catch, they were "bank notes" that looked like paper money, spent like paper money and people used them like paper money. There were a few differences though. They were issued by banks, and each bank had their own. As such, when the bank went bust (which was a whole lot more common before the Federal Reserve Act) they were worthless. If you were a distance away from the issuing bank, they were usually accepted at some discount, and again, before the Federal Reserve Act they weren't very effectively regulated by anyone. These notes were the common form of currency in much of the country, not many people carried gold coins around all the time. Of course, the system had built into it a certain amount of them becoming worthless over a period of time. And people just had to eat the loss. If you had a pocketfull of notes from your own bank where you had your life savings and the bank went bust, you lost twice. What a system. Not like now where if your bank goes bust, the government pays back your loss (up to a quarter million anyhow) and your pocket money isn't affected at all. Gee, things where so much better back in the day....

Then along came the evil bankers and government, did away with them and replaced them with a common currency, which were worth the same everywhere, that to this day the government has never refused to honor and have never become worthless. I've said it many times, the wing nuts who whine about how bad the Federal Reserve is and how it's a plot by them fat rich folks have no idea how much the system has protected them much more than the people they think are holding them down with it.

john w k wrote:When one uses the word “dollar” in place of “federal reserve note”, the distinctions between the two are lost and assists Wall Street bankers who, without constitutional authority, are manipulating our nation's currency using worthless paper notes.

In case you hadn't noticed. there are a lot of dollars floating around which aren't federal reserve notes.

Some of them are coins, but most of them are electrons.

Why don't you go back and play with Bing and Chris? I'm sure they appreciate you.

Talk about crazy theories, people actually believe Congress or some other branch of the federal government can alter the Constitution. Ok, sure and skittle farting unicorns are flying around my house right now. Wacky.

Talk about functional illiteracy, the Constitution says Congress shall regulate....etc and that is what they're doing. As Wes pointed out, there isn't anything in the Constitution that defines a dollar, it says Congress can regulate that, one way Congress did that was define it at one point as a set amount of specie, at other times it says other things, and for MOST of the history of the country, even when we had specie coinage, it has relied on a central bank, private institutions, to do it. Ever hear of the First Bank of the United States?

The constitution is not being altered at all, Congress is regulating the value thereof...and another thing, you keep implying that it reads "by a set of weights and measures" when in fact it says "and standards of weights and measures" which is a whole different thing. It means it can regulate money, and it can also regulate weights and measures, but the two are not necessarily connected at all.

Gregg wrote:
I've said it many times, the wing nuts who whine about how bad the Federal Reserve is and how it's a plot by them fat rich folks have no idea how much the system has protected them much more than the people they think are holding them down with it.

The Federal Reserve has not protected anyone. The use of a central has help in the rate, frequency, and amount of credit in the system. That is all, nothing more and nothing less. Credit systems have been blowing up since the being of credit systems. The use of credit is not really the ball buster, its the demand of any credit system that has to have exponential increase that seals it's doom. Eventually the system is unable to generate the amount of new credit it needs to pay/service the prior.

There really isn't anything the Federal Reserve is going to do to stop it, unless they can redefine the Laws of the Universe. I laugh my butt off watching stupid Congressmen on TV grilling Ben, it's the very best. Like Ben can somehow outsmart exponential math, what exactly do they want from him.

The Founders of the Constitution did not address the use of credit and the use of exponential expansion. With or without the Federal Reserve the credit system was doomed when it started. It's going to be fun to watch, much better than the fireworks I saw last night.

Gregg wrote:
The constitution is not being altered at all, Congress is regulating the value thereof...and another thing, you keep implying that it reads "by a set of weights and measures" when in fact it says "and standards of weights and measures" which is a whole different thing. It means it can regulate money, and it can also regulate weights and measures, but the two are not necessarily connected at all.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

"money" is the same as it was over two centuries ago. They certainly can regulate the value of "money" and fix the same with Standard of Weights and Measures.

For more information you can do searches on "Alexander Hamilton", "Spanish dollar", and "Coinage Act of 1792". Actually Hamilton put out his own report on it. If you have any confusion you can contact your Congressman, let us know what he says. Most probably he will forward your request to the Congressional Research Service.

Now, to whoever said the US Constitution defined "money" or "dollar" you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Are you going to admit you were wrong? Or are you going to try and change the subject without ever admitting your mistake? Your action will speak volumes about you.

I think you are talking to me. The words are already set in stone. If there is no definition than there is no "money" and no "dollars". Sorry, only a crazy person would say such a thing. "Money" and "dollar" were already defined prior to the Constitution, the Constitution merely set the definition to mean what they already knew it was. Congress, nor the Executive or Judicial Branch can redefine words already defined within the Constitution. See case already cited, been like this for two centuries.

"All animals are created equally, but some animals are more equal than others"

I don't know why we are going over the same ole stuff, if you have questions call your Congressman, he is going to give you basically what I already have given you, if not feel free to share.

LegalEagleMan wrote:the Constitution merely set the definition to mean what they already knew it was.

Where does the Constitution define either "money" or "dollar"? "Where" does not mean "give me your opinion". It does not mean "spin some prolix theory" or "why don't you bloviate for a while". "Where" means "Art. X sec.Y" or "Amendment Z".